From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace•org>
To: Ivan Brightly <ibrightly@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
Washington Sanchez <washington.sanchez@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamic limit to the block size - BIP draft discussion
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 14:13:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALqxMTERUFEFgJ4quz2dWLRw9fD3DkBp-6RO4cuvdBGV2MSyhw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAre=yRawFU_WMdE+ReemscYD33ez1PF6VhU2FmWo2fAEcw_Xw@mail.gmail.com>
The maximum block-size is one that can be filled at zero-cost by
miners, and so allows some kinds of amplification of selfish-mining
related attacks.
Adam
On 8 September 2015 at 13:28, Ivan Brightly via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> This is true, but miners already control block size through soft caps.
> Miners are fully capable of producing smaller blocks regardless of the max
> block limit, with or without collusion. Arguably, there is no need to ever
> reduce the max block size unless technology advances for some reason reverse
> course - aka, WW3 takes a toll on the internet and the average bandwidth
> available halves. The likelihood of significant technology contraction in
> the near future seems rather unlikely and is more broadly problematic for
> society than bitcoin specifically.
>
> The only reason for reducing the max block limit other than technology
> availability is if you think that this is what will produce the fee market,
> which is back to an economic discussion - not a technology scaling
> discussion.
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> > but allow meaningful relief to transaction volume pressure in response
>> > to true market demand
>>
>> If blocksize can only increase then it's like a market that only goes
>> up which is unrealistic. Transaction will volume ebb and flow
>> significantly. Some people have been looking at transaction volume
>> charts over time and all they can see is an exponential curve which
>> they think will go on forever, yet nothing goes up forever and it will
>> go through significant trend cycles (like everything does). If you
>> dont want to hurt the fee market, the blocksize has to be elastic and
>> allow contraction as well as expansion.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-08 13:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-08 7:45 Washington Sanchez
2015-09-08 8:49 ` Btc Drak
2015-09-08 12:28 ` Ivan Brightly
2015-09-08 13:13 ` Adam Back [this message]
2015-09-08 13:52 ` Ivan Brightly
2015-09-08 14:02 ` Washington Sanchez
2015-09-08 14:18 ` Adam Back
2015-09-08 15:10 ` Washington Sanchez
2015-09-08 16:46 ` Andrew Johnson
2015-09-08 17:04 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-09-08 23:11 ` Washington Sanchez
2015-09-09 13:10 ` Washington Sanchez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CALqxMTERUFEFgJ4quz2dWLRw9fD3DkBp-6RO4cuvdBGV2MSyhw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=adam@cypherspace$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=ibrightly@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=washington.sanchez@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox